Investigation of Longitudinal Spatial Coherence for Electromagnetic

Home , Coherence length

arXiv:1907.05831v1 [physics.optics] 12 Jul 2019 * 09OtclSceyo mrc ne h em fthe of terms the under America of Society Optical 2019 © Abstract: .D ykn .Rauh,adV ybko Mta spatiote “Mutual Ryabukho, V. and Ryabukho, P. Lyakin, D. 4. xeietlQatmItreoer n oaiain(EQ Polarization and Interferometry Quantum Experimental fields optical coherence electromagnetic spatial for longitudinal of Investigation .E Wolf, E. 1. References India. 110016, Delhi New Delhi, Technology of Institute fuiomyplrzdlgtfilsfrdffrn nua spe angular different for fields light polarized uniformly coher of spatial longitudinal electromagnetic coherence the spatial measuring longitudinal this their ang In quantifying the of in effect fields possess. the demonstrate they to spectra formulation theoretical angular and spectra frequency .V ybko .Lai,adV yhgv Lniuia pu “Longitudinal Lychagov, V. and Lyakin, D. Ryabukho, V. 2. .V ybko .Lai,adV yhgv Lniuia co “Longitudinal Lychagov, V. and Lyakin, D. Ryabukho, V. 3. .I buhlm Cmeec ewe pta n temporal and spatial between “Competence Abdulhalim, I. 5. .D ykn .Y yia n .Rauh,“oeec volum “Coherence Ryabukho, V. and Mysina, Y. N. Lyakin, D. 7. .D .Lai n .P ybko Lniuia correlatio “Longitudinal Ryabukho, P. V. and Lyakin V. D. 6. .V ybko .Mkioa .Y yia .Lai,adP R P. and Lyakin, D. Mysina, Y. N. Maksimova, L. Ryabukho, V. 8. 1 .Rauh,D ykn n .Lbce,“nuneo lon of “Influence Lobachev, M. and Lyakin, D. Ryabukho, V. 11. .J oe n .Yrv Lniuia ata oeec of coherence partial “Longitudinal Yariv, A. and Rosen J. 9. 2 .K,“oeec hoyo ai-srnmclmeasure radio-astronomical of theory “Coherence Ko, H. 12. 0 .M Soroko, M. L. 10. 3 .RsnadM aea Lniuia pta coherence spatial “Longitudinal Takeda, M. and Rosen J. 13. 4 .Da,Y iaoo n .Tkd,“iprinfe op “Dispersion-free Takeda, M. and Miyamoto, Y. Duan, Z. 14. 5 .Amd .Siatv,V ue,adD et,“Ultra-s Mehta, D. and Dubey, V. Srivastava, V. Ahmad, A. 15. 6 .Adlai,“pta n eprlchrneeet i effects coherence temporal and “Spatial Abdulhalim, I. 16. 8 .M cmt,“pia oeec oorpy(c) re a (oct): tomography coherence “Optical Schmitt, M. J. 18. 7 .Zyioih Sotchrnelnt rdcdb sp a by produced length coherence “Short Zeylikovich, I. 17. 0 .Stl,J ev,adA .Fieg Cnrsso Stok of “Contrasts Friberg, T. A. and Tervo, J. Setälä, T. Wolf, 20. E. and Born M. 19. 1 .Hsie,J ev,T eää n .T rbr,“Hanb Friberg, T. A. and Setälä, T. Tervo, J. Hassinen, T. 21. B [email protected] HASKAR ihtecmie ffc fsail nua,adtmoa di temporal and angular, spatial, of effect combined the with 100 (2019). (1967). (2000). 2511 (1999). 1205–1215 8–8 (2009). 282–287 pitn nefrmtr”Ot Spectrosc. Opt. interferometer,” splitting n nefrnemcocp, .Ot :Pr pl Opt. Appl. Pure A: Opt. J. microscopy,” interference and nua pcr, p.Spectrosc. Opt. spectra,” angular rqec pcr n hi aietto ninterference in manifestation their and spectra frequency atal oeetotclwv edwt ra frequency broad with field wave optical coherent partially a nefrmtr”Ot Lett. Opt. interferometer,” obgnrtdb naglrsetu ouao, p.Expr Opt. modulator,” spectrum angular an by generated comb oorpy”AnlndrPhysik der Annalen tomography,” mtr”Ap.Opt. Appl. ometer,” Express lcrmgei ereo oeec, p.Lett. Opt. coherence,” of degree electromagnetic 2–3 (2006). 724–733 , 19 nrdcint h hoyo oeec n oaiainof Polarization and Coherence of Theory the to Introduction 58–59 (2011). 15188–15195 , o ih ed,techrnei ogtdnldrcinis direction longitudinal in coherence the fields, light For K oorpyadChrn Optics Coherent and Holography ANSERI 47 rnilso Optics of Principles 1127 (2008). 2171–2177 , 29 6–6 (2004). 667–669 , * AND 124 524 4–5 (2018). 349–359 , 8–0 (2012). 787–804 , G 122 CmrdeUiest,1999). University, (Cambridge AYTRI 2–3 (2017). 329–337 , Peu,1980). (Plenum, 31 6927 (2006). 2669–2671 , A ple o ufc rfioer, pl Opt. Appl. profilometry,” surface for applied et, EETascin nAtna Propag. Antennas on Transactions IEEE ments,” RYA ta noeetsuc ple o h inktp interf Linnik-type the for applied source incoherent atial nefrnemcocp n ulfil pia coherence optical full-field and microscopy interference n irsoy”QatmElectron. Quantum microscopy,” r rw-ws ffc iheetoantcwvs”Opt. waves,” electromagnetic with effect Brown-Twiss ury 8 pia aito, p.Commun. Opt. radiation,” optical 5–5 (2006). 952–958 , sprmtr nYugsitreec xeietand experiment interference Young’s in parameters es rpriso notclfil ihbodaglrand angular broad with field optical an of properties n otlniuia pta oeec egho ae light laser of length coherence spatial longitudinal hort eec egho notclfil, p.Spectrosc. Opt. field,” optical an of length herence iw”IE .slce oisqatmelectronics quantum topics selected J. IEEE view,” est, pl hs Lett. Phys. Appl. versity,” ia oeec et esn ihasailfrequency spatial a with sensing depth coherence tical iuia pta oeec ntesga fascanning a of signal the on coherence spatial gitudinal eysailchrneo ih ed”Ot Spectrosc. Opt. field,” light a of coherence spatial rely oeec nfl edotclchrnetomography coherence optical field full in coherence S pnAcs ulsigAgreement Publishing Access Open OSA n nua pcr, p.Spectrosc. Opt. spectra,” angular and prlchrneo pia ed na amplitude- an in fields optical of coherence mporal ess fa pia aefil ihbodfeunyand frequency broad with field wave optical an of e I) eateto hsc,Indian Physics, of Department UIP), h xeietlrslsotie by obtained results experimental The . 14 neaddge fcross-polarization of degree and ence auh,“ntnaeu pcl tutrsin structures speckle “Instantaneous yabukho, 20–22 (2006). 12109–12121 , tavldt h hoeia findings. theoretical the validate ctra lrsetao lcrmgei light electromagnetic of spectra ular Light ok edvlpadrpr a report and develop we work, CmrdeUiest,2007). University, (Cambridge 106 oendb ohthe both by governed 971(2015). 093701 , 43 117 4–5 (2013). 949–957 , –2(1995). 8–12 , 39 126 4107–4111 , 124–134 , 15 10–20 , 107 er- 5 , , 22. A. Al-Qasimi, M. Lahiri, D. Kuebel, D. F. James, and E. Wolf, “The influence of the degree of cross-polarization on the Hanbury Brown-Twiss effect,” Opt. Express 18, 17124–17129 (2010). 23. S. Volkov, D. F. James, T. Shirai, and E. Wolf, “Intensity fluctuations and the degree of cross-polarization in stochastic electromagnetic beams,” J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 10, 055001 (2008). 24. L.-P. Leppänen, A. T. Friberg, and T. Setälä, “Temporal electromagnetic degree of coherence and Stokes-parameter modulations in Michelson interferometer,” Appl. Phys. B 122, 32 (2016). 25. B. Kanseri and H. C. Kandpal, “Experimental determination of two-point Stokes parameters for a partially coherent broadband light beam,” Opt. Commun. 283, 4558–4562 (2010). 26. L.-P. Leppänen, K. Saastamoinen, A. T. Friberg, and T. Setälä, “Measurement of the degree of temporal coherence of unpolarized light beams,” Photonics Res. 5, 156–161 (2017). 27. B. Kanseri, Optical Coherence and Polarization: An Experimental Outlook (Lambert Academic, 2013).

1. Introduction For optical fields, the field correlation between different points in the direction of its propagation has been mainly understood as temporal coherence [1]. However, depending on the divergence of the field, coherence in the longitudinal direction can be seen as the combined effect of the frequency spectrum and angular spectrum [2–8]. Existing studies in this direction emphasize on the role of the size of an extended source in determining longitudinal spatial coherence (LSC) [9–11], and use of interferometric schemes to determine LSC for scalar light fields [4,11]. It has been demonstrated that the angular diversity of the field results in amplitude-phase transformation and thus effective coherence length (Lc) in longitudinal direction is given in terms of temporal coherence length (lc) and longitudinal spatial coherence length (ρ ) as k 1 1 + 1 [2,3]. LSC has found several applications in applied optics [10], in radio- LC ≈ lc ρ astronomy [12]k and in surface profilometry [13,14]. In the medical field, it has been used to decrease effective coherence length of highly monochromatic source such as laser by orders of magnitude, providing high axial resolution in state of art imaging techniques such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and interference microscopy [5,15–17]. Clearly, the role of LSC is quite important in controlling the coherence features of light sources. To extract the information of the tissue birefringence and scattering, and to study the electromagnetic fields, the polarization of the field also needs to be examined [18]. Since polarization and coherence both characterize the statistical similarity of correlations [1,19], during the past decade or so, their combined effects have been explored in both spatial and temporal domains (for details see [20–27] and references therein). Since existing studies on LSC have mainly focussed on scalar aspects, and the role of vectorial nature of light has not been explored so far, it is quite essential and timely to investigate the combined effect of polarization with LSC both theoretically and experimentally. In this paper, first we develop a theoretical framework to quantify the effect of angular spectra on the coherence in the longitudinal direction for electromagnetic (EM) fields using the standard theory of partial coherence and polarization. Our study finds that the electromagnetic degree of coherence (EMDOC) in the longitudinal direction can be written as a product of two terms: one characterizing angular spectrum and the other temporal EMDOC of the source. Further for the validation of the theory, we conduct an experiment, in which the longitudinal EMDOC has been measured for different angular spectra of a uniformly polarized source. We also determine the degree of cross-polarization (DOCP) both theoretically and experimentally for our source of variable angular spectrum.

2. Theory Let us consider a random, statistically stationary, uniformly polarized light ﬁeld propagating in z-direction emerging from a monochromatic source σ (at z = 0), as shown in Fig. 1. The extended source exhibits an angular spectrum of 2θ at point P1 0, 0, z1 in the subsequent plane and α denotes the angular coordinatedue to an arbitrarypoint s on( the source) plane. The electric Fig. 1. Schematic diagram representing the geometrical angular spectrum (2θ) of a source (σ). Symbols are described in the text.

ﬁeld components reaching at point Pm 0, 0, zm (m=1, 2) from an arbitrary single point s at point ( ) P1 [19] can be expressed as

Ai t, α Ei zm, t, α = ( ) exp ιkrm ;for i = x, y , (1) ( ) rm ( ) ( ) where ι represents ‘iota’ (imaginary part), Ai t, α denotes the complex amplitude at point s at ′ ′ ( ) time t, rm represents the distance between points s and Pm (m=1, 2) and k is the wave vector. The coherence properties of different polarization components of light field are given by the 2 2 electric cross-spectral density (CSD) matrix [1]. CSD matrix Wij z1, z2, α = × ( ) E z1, t, α Ej z2, t, α describes the correlations between the field components at point z1 h i∗( ) ( )i and z2 due to the point source s. For the extended source σ (see sec.4.8 of [10]), this matrix is obtained by integrating the angular spectra over the source plane as

2 Wij z1, z2, θ = z E∗ z1, t, α Ej z2, t, α dζdη; (2) ( ) ¹ ¹ h i ( ) ( )

2+ 2 = x = y = √x y s where ζ z , η z and α z and (x,y) are the coordinates of point . Using Jacobian transformation of coordinates, the integration obtained in terms of α is given by

θ = 2 Wij z1, z2, θ 2πz Ei∗ z1, t, α Ej z2, t, α αdα. (3) ( ) ¹0 h ( ) ( )i Considering the general case of a uniform intensity source i.e A t, α = A t , we get the CSD matrix as ( ) ( ) πz2θ2 ιk∆z k∆zθ2 Wij zm, zn, θ = exp − sinc Wij zm, zn, 0 ; for m, n = 1, 2 , (4) ( ) 2 4 4 ( ) ( ) A t Aj t , W z z = k∆z h ∗i ( ) ( )i where (m n), and ij 1, 2, 0 exp ι z2 are the CSD matrix elements measuring pure temporal coherence.( For)∆z = 0( (single) point), Eq. (4) reduces to the coherence matrix. Electromagnetic degree of coherence (EMDOC): EMDOC quantiﬁes coherence for EM ﬁelds [20]. For the case of LSC, the expression for EMDOC becomes

tr W z1, z2, θ .W z2, z1, θ γe z1, z2, θ = ( ) ( ) . (5) ( ) trW z1, z1, θ trW z2, z2, θ ( ) ( ) Visibilities of generalized Stokes parameters [Vn z1, z2, θ ] [20,24] are deﬁned as the ratio ( ) Sn z1, z2, θ S0 z1, z1, θ for (n=0:3), and EMDOC can be expressed in terms of these visibilities as( [21] )/ ( ) 3 1 2 γe z1, z2, θ = Vj z1, z2, θ . (6) ( ) 2 | ( )| Õn=0 On substituting CSD matrix elements from Eq. (4) into the Eq. (5), and after some rearrange- ment of terms, longitudinal EMDOC can be expressed as

2 k∆zθ2 γ z , z , θ = 2 1 cos γ z , z , 0 , (7) e 1 2 ∆ 2 r e 1 2 ( ) k zθ − 2 ( ) where γe z1, z2, 0 = tr W z1, z2, 0 .W z2, z1, 0 trW z1, z1, 0 trW z2, z2, 0 refers to the con- tribution( of pure) temporal( [ EMDOC( ) [20].( )])/( ( ) ( )) Now we consider the source having Gaussian intensity distribution whose amplitude is given 2 2 as Ai t, α =Ai t exp α θ ; for i = x, y, which is obtained on substituting r (radial distance) as αz(and) w(z)(beam( ) (− waist)/ as) θz in Gaussian amplitude deﬁnition. Other factors of Gaussian amplitude contribute negligibly and hence can be ignored. On proceeding as above, the CSD matrix yields as

πz2θ2 ιk∆zθ2 W z z = + W z z ij 1, 2, θ ∆ 2 1 exp 2 1 ij 1, 2, 0 . (8) ( ) 2 1 + ιk zθ − − ( 4 ) ( ) ( 4 )

CSD matrix at point P1 (m=n) can be obtain from Eq. (8) by using ∆z = 0. Longitudinal EMDOC obtained from this CSD matrix using Eq. (5) is given by

1 + e 4 2e 2 cos k∆zθ2 γ z , z , θ = ( − − − 2 ) γ z , z , . e 1 2 uv ∆ 2 e 1 2 0 (9) ( ) t 1 e 2 2 1 + k zθ 2 ( ) ( − − ) ( 4 ) EMDOC is plotted for the uniform intensity distribution source and for Gaussian intensity

Fig. 2. Plot of EMDOC vs longitudinal shift (path difference between two arms of the Michelson interferometer) for the source having (a) uniform intensity distribution [Eq. (7)], and (b) Gaussian distribution [Eq. (9)]. Colour codes for curves having angular spectrum θ (in radian): 0 (temporal) black, 0.02 red, 0.04 mustard, 0.06 blue, 0.1 purple and 0.2 green. distributed source in Fig. 2. We see that in both the cases, with increase in angular spectra, the EMDOC decreases more rapidly. One can also notice that the dip in EMDOC for Gaussian distribution is not much pronounced compared to the case of the uniform intensity distribution. This can be due to the reason that fora Gaussian source, most of the amplitude is concentrated in the central region for Gaussian distribution (envelope effect) which produces broader maxima. Degree of cross polarization (DOCP): In contrast to EMDOC [Eq. (6)], which depends on both the intensity and the polarization modulations via all the fourgeneralized Stokes parameters, DOCP depends only on the polarization modulations of the field [23], i.e. P z1, z2, θ = ( ) 3 V z z V z z i=1 i 1, 2, θ 0 1, 2, θ , offeringa quantificationof coherencebehaviourfor polarization q ( )/ ( ) Í modulations only. The relation between EMDOC (γe z1, z2, θ ) andDOCP (P z1, z2, θ ) is given in [21–23] and for the longitudinal case it can be expressed( as) ( )

2 1 γ z1, z2, θ = 1 + P z1, z2, θ V0 z1, z2, θ . (10) e( ) 2[ ( )] ( ) Using the values of CSD matrix from Eq. (4) in the definition of Stokes parameters [20] and substituting them in Eq. (10), we get DOCP (for m,n) for the field having angular spectrum (2θ) equal to the DOCP for temporal field as P zm, zn, θ = P zm, zn, 0 . For same point m = n , DOCP reduces to degree of polarization which( is identical) ( for the) diverging field and the( collimated) field.

3. Experimental details In order to validate the theoretical ﬁndings, we determine the longitudinal EMDOC for a source having diﬀerent angular spectra but uniform polarization. The experimental scheme is demonstrated in Fig. 3(a). The spatial coherence of a vertically polarized laser beam (

Fig. 3. (a) Scheme of the experimental set-up for investigating electromagnetic longitudinal spatial coherence. (b) Degree of polarization of the source measured for diﬀerent values of the angular spectrum showing constant behaviour. Notations are described in the text.

λ = 532nm) is destroyed by passing it through a rotating ground glass diffuser (RGG). The emerging partially coherent diverging field is collimated using a lens (L). Different angular spectra are produced with the help of an aperture (A) and microscope objectives (MOs) of numerical apertures (NAs) 4X and 10X. This field passes through a beam splitter (BS) and two mirrors (M) assembly (one mirror placed on a translation stage) and a charged coupled device (CCD) camera is used to record the interference field. A lens (L) is used just before the CCD in order to collect the diverging superimposed fields within the sensor area. The degree and state of polarization of the diffused laser beam (with and without MO) is measured using Stokes polarimetry [27] and is found identical for different beam divergences, as plotted and shown in Fig. 3(b). This uniformity of polarization makes the use of quarter wave plate (QWP) with the same orientation of the fast axis for different angular spectra feasible. The longitudinal EMDOC is determined experimentally by measuring the visibilities of four generalized Stokes parameters by converting polarization modulations into intensity modulations as reported in [26]. The Michelson interferometric set-up shown in Fig. 3(a) is used to measure the four visibilities (Vn; n=0:3). No QWP is required for V0 and for V1, a QWP is placed in 0 0 the non-translating arm with an angle of 0 , and for V2, the QWP is rotated by 45 . Fig. 3(a) 0 represents the case for the determination of V1 and V2. Two QWP’s (one at 0 and other at 450) are used in the non-translating arm and one QWP at 0o in translating arm are used for the measurement of V3 [26]. These visibilities are measured from the rectangular profile of the fringe pattern observed in CCD. Also, we compensate the extra path difference introduced in the non-translating arm for V1, V2 and V3. The mirror placed on the translation stage is moved in a step size of 20microns and thus the path difference between the fields is shifted in the size of 40microns.

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 4. Plot of EMDOC (blue, left) and DOCP (orange, right) versus path difference for angular spectra (θ) ranging from of 0.016rad to 0.13rad, where blue ticks are for experimental EMDOC points and red line is its fitting with Eq. (9). Orange ticks correspond to experimental DOCP points and green line represents its fitting with straight line.

Fig. 4 shows the variation in EMDOC and DOCP with respect to the path difference in the interferometer arms, for different values of angular spectra (θ in radian) as 0.016, 0.028, 0.072 and 0.13 radian. It is apparent that the coherence length of the optical field decreases with increasing the angular spectrum whereas the frequency spectrum of the source remains unchanged. The width of the angularspectra were measuredbefore the Michelson interferometer set-up, using a beam profiler. In order to compare these experimental results with the theoretical model proposed earlier in section 2, we fit the experimental data points of Fig. 4 with Eq.(9), using θ as a fitting parameter. The experimental uncertainty in the values of θ lies within 5 %, demonstrating a good agreement between theory and experiment. DOCP, on the other± hand, remains unchanged with the path difference. Modulations can be seen more frequent for broader angular spectra both theoretically and experimentally (Fig. 4), whereas for larger angles (0.13 radian), experimental results do not follow theoretical ones very precisely owing to the limited resolution (40 microns) of the translation stage. For the pure temporal coherence (no angular spectra, i.e. no MO), as shown in Fig. 5(a), the EMDOC varies very slowly with the path difference, as the coherence length (more than 5 meters) of the laser is decided by the frequency spectrum only. The DOCP in this case, is close to one and remains invariant with the path difference between mirrors. A comparison between Figs. 4 and 5(a) also reveals that, as derived in Eq. (9), the temporal EMDOC is constant over the path difference range of the experiment (1cm), and the effect on the coherence length is mainly due to the angular spectrum of the source. DOCP for different angular spectra is expected to be the same as for purely temporal field, earlier explained in the Theory section. Constant behaviour of DOCP for all values of angular spectra seen in Fig. 4 is found to be similar to the constant behaviour of the temporal coherence shown in Fig. 5(a). Though the DOCP for different angular spectra behave similarly, yet the values of constants differ. DOCP can range up to infinity for correlated fields, but DOCP equals to DOP for uncorrelated fields [21]. We see that both the EMDOC and DOCP for temporally coherent field fluctuate near unity [Fig. 4(a)], whereas the values of DOCP fluctuate and drop from unity for change in angular spectra (Fig. 4). This slight discrepancy can be caused due to the experimental subtleties such as imperfect alignment and unequal intensities of interfering beams. Fig. 5(b) depicts the variation in the longitudinal coherence length that can be achieved with

Fig. 5. (a) Plot of EMDOC (left) and DOCP (right) versus path difference for purely temporal coherence (without MO), where orange ticks correspond to experimental data and green line is its straight line fit. Blue ticks denote experimentally measured EMDOC fitted using Eq. (9) with red line. (b) Plot of longitudinal coherence length (Lc) versus angular spectra of the source. Black ticks represent experimental data and red curve is its theoretical fit. the principle of angular diversity. The theoretical behaviour of coherence length corresponding to the given angular spectrum is plotted according to the relation ρ = 2λ θ2 [3]. We clearly observe that the experimentally achieved values of coherence lengthsk ( for)/ the angular spectra match perfectly with the theoretically expected results within measurement uncertainty. Thus one can decrease the coherence length by orders of magnitude (meters to microns), with a small increase in the angular spectra (0.016rad to 0.13rad).

5. Conclusion In conclusion, we demonstratethat the coherencefordivergingelectromagnetic fields, in general, depends on both the temporal EM coherence and the angular dimension (divergence) of the source. Experimentally measured EM degree of coherence for different angular spectra of the field agrees well with the theoretical results. We observe that the role of polarizationcorrelations is determined through degree of cross-polarization, which is experimentally found identical for both the diverging and non-diverging fields within the experimental uncertainties. These results are expected to be useful in characterizing the coherence properties of most general form of EM fields (such as natural light fields) which exhibit both the partial correlations and arbitrary divergence features.

6. Funding Research leading to the results reported in this paper received funding from Science Engineering Research Board (SERB), India (grant YSS/ 2015/ 00743) and from Council of Scientiﬁc and Industrial Research (CSIR), India (grant 03(1401)/17/EMR-II).